provisions also contain unclear conditions that a threat must be “repeated” via a telecommunications means in order to incur criminal liability, leaving individuals unclear as to when they may be in violation of the law and at risk of substantial prison sentences. 12  Article 99 introduces sentences of six months to two years’ imprisonment and heavy financial penalties for “any act of producing, installing or distributing software or hidden audio recorders for recording dialogue” without approval from the authorities. This unclear provision could potentially criminalise the basic use, sharing or development of software such as smartphone apps. These are disproportionate penalties that excessively include ordinary and legitimate usage of telecommunications equipment, software and networks. Again, this offence appears to carry strict liability. 13  Article 107 establishes the vicarious liability of leaders of organisations for the professional acts of individual staff members. This provision also affirms that individual criminal liability is not extinguished and both an individual staff member and the leader with ultimate decision-making responsibility within an organisation may be held dually criminally responsible for the same alleged telecoms offences. Additionally, organisations could face consequences if their staff representatives or leadership are found criminally liable for offences. This potentially poses a serious threat to advocacy work by individuals and groups and civil society at large. It could also allow for the targeting of groups and organisations through the acts of individuals. In the context of the upcoming elections, this is extremely worrying, for example it could allow opposition parties be targeted for the political speech of their members, candidates and activists. It also raises serious concerns over free expression by the media if individual reporters and senior staff can be convicted for expression of opinion. 14  Article 65 (b) claims to enshrine the right to privacy for individuals using telecommunications services.15 However, this protection of privacy and correspondence carries no substantive value in practice due to the inclusion of an exception clause permitting this right to be overridden should it be, “Otherwise determined by other specific laws.” This exception clause is unconstitutional. The right to confidentiality of correspondence is enshrined in the Constitution, 16 the highest source of domestic law and one that cannot be derogated from by ordinary national law. 17 The remainder of the Telecoms Law itself also severely undermines this flimsy protection and the powers it gives to government bodies amount to constitutional violations in their own right. Nevertheless, Article 65 (g) provides for the right to freedom of association through telecommunications, with explicit reference to the Constitution. 18 There is no explanation as to this inconsistency in the entrenchment of rights and protections.  Article 65 (c) establishes a right for individual telecommunications service users to participate in consultation on the policies and regulations for the telecommunications sector. Yet the law itself was passed with little warning and no meaningful consultation, lacking any transparency and excluding input from service users. 19 12 Threats must be issued “again and again” under Articles 93 and 95. Telecoms Law Article 99; also Article 100 14 Telecoms Law Article 107 15 Telecoms Law Article 65(b) 16 Cambodian Constitution Article 40 17 Cambodian Constitution Article 150 18 Telecoms Law Article 65(g); Freedom of association and peaceful assembly is protected under Cambodian Constitution Articles 41 and 42 while Article 31 also domestically recognizes and respects international standards including ICCPR Article 22 19 Telecoms Law Article 65(c) 13 Page 3 of 7